Ford Motor Company

1
Ford Motor Companys Finished Vehicle
Distribution System April 2001
Ellen Ewing Project Director UPS Logistics
Dr. John Vande Vate Exec. Director EMIL ISyE
Georgia Tech
2
Agenda

• Introduction
• 1999 Environment
• Solution Approach
• Network Design
• Implement New Strategy
• Results to Date
• Summary

3
Objectives/Motivation

• Novel application of cross-docking Rail-to-Rail
• Cross-docking for Speed
• Role of modeling
• Load-driven System
• Modeling Inventory in Network Design

4
The Need for Speed

• Financial Incentives Capital Utilization
• In 1996
• Ford produced 3.9 million vehicles in the US
• Avg. transit time 15 days
• Avg. vehicle revenue 18,000
• Value of pipeline inventory gt 2.8 Billion
• One day reduced transit time
• 190 Million reduction in pipeline inv.
• 1,400 fewer railcars

5
The Need for Speed

• Demand for land
• 22 Plants
• 54 Destination Ramps
• 1,200 Load lanes
• 8,400 vehicles waiting at plants
• 166 Million in inventory

6
The Need for Speed

• Other Incentives
• Damage
• Flexibility
• Others?

7
(No Transcript)
8
The Price

• Inventory at the cross dock
• Added distance traveled
• Handling at the cross dock
• Capital costs of the cross dock

9
1999 Vehicle Network Delivery Conditions

• Record production levels
• Demand shift from cars to trucks
• Overburdened rail infrastructure
• Deteriorating rail service
• Shortage of transport capacity
• Mixing centers
• 15 day transit time
• High inventory cost
• Dissatisfied customers

10
High 1999 Level Statistics

• Assembly plants 22
• Mixing centers 5
• Destination rail ramps 54
• Dealer locations 6,000
• Production volume 4.4 Mil./Year
• Freight expense 1.5 Bil.
• Dec. 99 avg. transit time 16.8 Days
• Pipeline Inventory 4.1 Bil.

11
Ford Distribution Network
12
Old Delivery Design

• Push Network
• Vendor sub systems optimized for individual
  segments
• Little to no visibility
• Mixing Centers not used effectively

13
Ford Goals

• Speed
• 1999 Average 15 days transit time
• Goal Maximum of 8 days transit time
• Precision
• 1998/1999 37 on time within 1 week
• Goal 95 on time within 1 day
• Visibility
• 100 Internet vehicle tracking from plant
  release to dealer delivery
• Guide the flow of vehicles
• Respond to variations
• Inform customers

14
Design Process

• Truck vs Rail delivery
• Allocate Dealers (FIPS)
• to Ramps
• Route Flows through
• Rail Network

15
Single-Sourcing Allocation

• Var AssignFIPS, RAMPS binary
• Minimize TotalCost
• sumfip in FIPS,ramp in RAMPS
  Costfip,rampAssignfip,ramp
• s.t. SingleSourcefip in FIPS
• sumramp in RAMPSAssignfip,ramp 1
• s.t. ObserveCapacityramp in RAMPS
• sumfip in FIPS VolumefipAssignfip,ramp
  
• lt Capacityramp

16
Old Ramp AllocationSouthern US
Dealers sourced by multiple ramps
17
New Ramp AllocationSouthern US
Dealers sourced by single ramps
18
New Allocation of Dealers to RampsMainland US
19
Flows through the Rail Network

• Objective is NOT Freight cost!

20
The Objective IS

• Speed
• Capital
• Land

21
The Promise

• Speed
• Unit trains bypass hump yards

22
The Promise

• Capital Land

Time
23
The Promise

• Capital Land
• 22 Plants
• 54 Destination Ramps
• 1,200 Load lanes
• 8,400 vehicles waiting at plants
• 166 Million in inventory
• Each Plant to One Mixing Center
• 22 Load lanes
• 154 vehicles waiting at plants
• 3 Million in inventory

24
The Price

• Inventory at the cross dock
• Handling at the cross dock
• Capital costs of the cross dock
• Added distance traveled

25
Making the Trade-offs

• Measuring Inventory
• In the rail network
• At the plants and Cross Docks
• Load-driven system
• Railcars depart when full
• Relationship between
• Network Design and Inventory

26
Inventory at the Plants

• Half a rail car full for each destination

Time
27
Inventory at the Mixing Centers

• Half a rail car full for each destination

Time
28
Workload at the Mixing Centers

• Unpredictable

Rail car holds 5 vehicles
Orilla Benicia Mira Loma Laurel Denver
29
Workload at the Mixing Centers

• Balanced Only load cars you empty

Rail car holds 5 vehicles
Orilla Benicia Mira Loma Laurel Denver
Orilla
30
Effect on Inventory

• Inventory at Mixing Center slowly grows
• to just over (ramps -1)(capacity -1) and
  remains there
• Roughly twice the inventory of before
• Still depends on the number of ramps the cross
  dock serves

31
Consolidation for Speed

• Unit Trains of 15-20 rail cars dont stop at
• mixing yards
• Trade moving inventory for stationary
• inventory

32
Model

• Paths
• Route from Plant to Ramp
• Mode used on each edge
• Demandramp, plant
• Combined demand at ramp for all
• products from the plant
• Variables
• PathFlowpath
• Volume from the plant to the ramp on
• the path
• UseLanefromloc, toloc, mode binary
• Did we use the mode between two locations

33
Model

• Objective
• Minimize the number of vehicles in the pipeline
• Moving Component (Transit times)
• Waiting Component (Mode Size)
• Minimize PipelineInventory
• sumpath in Paths (Total Transit
  Time)PathFlowpath
• sum(f,t,m) (Sizem/2)UseLanef,t,m

34
Model

• Satisfy Demand
• The sum of flows on all paths between a plant and
  a ramp must meet demand
• s.t. SatisfyDemandp in PLANTS, r in RAMPS
• sumpath in PATHS Plantpathp and Ramppath
  r
• PathFlowpath gt Demandp,r

35
Model

• Define UseLane
• For each pair of locations and mode between them
  write a constraint for each plant and ramp
• s.t. DefineUseLanep in PLANTS, r in RAMPS,
• (f,t,m) in
  EDGES
• sumpath in PATHS Plantpathp and
• Ramppath
  r and
• (f,t,m) in
  PATHEDGESpath
• PathFlowpath lt Demandp,rUseLanef,t,
  m

36
Model

• Large Model
• Lots of Variables Many Paths
• Lots of Constraints DefineUseLane
• The LP relaxation is nearly always integral

37
New Rail Lanes
Reduced plant destinations
38
Final Outbound Rail Network with Carriers
St Paul
Canada
Edison
Michigan
Chicago
Ohio
St Louis
Norfolk
Kentucky
Kansas City
Atlanta
Mixing Centers
Destination Ramps
Union Pacific
CSXT
FEC
BNSF
Canadian Pacific
Car Haul to Ramp
Norfolk Southern
Canadian National
39
Results

• Cut vehicle transit time by 26 or 4 days
• 1 billion savings in vehicle inventory
• 125 million savings in inventory carrying costs
• Avoid bottlenecks
• Reduce assets in supply chain
• Improved inventory turns at dealer

40
Benefits

• Ford
• Dealers
• Rail Carriers
• Auto Haulers

41
Benefits - Ford

• On-time delivery
• Competitive edge
• Cost control

42
Benefits - Dealers

• Reduced inventories
• Increased customer satisfaction

43
Benefits - Rail Carriers

• Improved equipment utilization (reduced capital
  
• expenditures)
• Visibility and planning capabilities
• Synergies with existing UPS traffic
• Increased cooperation

44
Benefits - Auto Haulers

• Expanded dealer delivery hours
• Visibility and planning capability
• Improved asset utilization
• Increased cooperation